This paper is in the following e-collection/theme issue:

Pilot studies (non-ehealth) (65) Artificial Intelligence (1371) AI Language Models in Health Care (58) Generative Language Models Including ChatGPT (311) Vaccination and Immunization in the Digital Age (374) Language Translation Technologies for Medicine and Public Health (16) Information Quality in Digital Media (340) Information Retrieval (287)

Published on in Vol 8 (2024)

Preprints (earlier versions) of this paper are available at https://preprints.jmir.org/preprint/60939, first published .
Ensuring Accuracy and Equity in Vaccination Information From ChatGPT and CDC: Mixed-Methods Cross-Language Evaluation

Ensuring Accuracy and Equity in Vaccination Information From ChatGPT and CDC: Mixed-Methods Cross-Language Evaluation

Ensuring Accuracy and Equity in Vaccination Information From ChatGPT and CDC: Mixed-Methods Cross-Language Evaluation

Authors of this article:

Saubhagya Joshi1 Author Orcid Image ;   Eunbin Ha1 Author Orcid Image ;   Andee Amaya1 Author Orcid Image ;   Melissa Mendoza1 Author Orcid Image ;   Yonaira Rivera1 Author Orcid Image ;   Vivek K Singh1 Author Orcid Image
Article Authors Cited by Tweetations Metrics

    Original Paper

    School of Communication & Information, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ, United States

    Corresponding Author:

    Vivek K Singh, PhD

    School of Communication & Information

    Rutgers University

    4 Huntington Street

    New Brunswick, NJ, 08901

    United States

    Phone: 1 848 932 7588

    Fax:1 732 932 6916

    Email: v.singh@rutgers.edu


    Background: In the digital age, large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT have emerged as important sources of health care information. Their interactive capabilities offer promise for enhancing health access, particularly for groups facing traditional barriers such as insurance and language constraints. Despite their growing public health use, with millions of medical queries processed weekly, the quality of LLM-provided information remains inconsistent. Previous studies have predominantly assessed ChatGPT’s English responses, overlooking the needs of non–English speakers in the United States. This study addresses this gap by evaluating the quality and linguistic parity of vaccination information from ChatGPT and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), emphasizing health equity.

    Objective: This study aims to assess the quality and language equity of vaccination information provided by ChatGPT and the CDC in English and Spanish. It highlights the critical need for cross-language evaluation to ensure equitable health information access for all linguistic groups.

    Methods: We conducted a comparative analysis of ChatGPT’s and CDC’s responses to frequently asked vaccination-related questions in both languages. The evaluation encompassed quantitative and qualitative assessments of accuracy, readability, and understandability. Accuracy was gauged by the perceived level of misinformation; readability, by the Flesch-Kincaid grade level and readability score; and understandability, by items from the National Institutes of Health’s Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT) instrument.

    Results: The study found that both ChatGPT and CDC provided mostly accurate and understandable (eg, scores over 95 out of 100) responses. However, Flesch-Kincaid grade levels often exceeded the American Medical Association’s recommended levels, particularly in English (eg, average grade level in English for ChatGPT=12.84, Spanish=7.93, recommended=6). CDC responses outperformed ChatGPT in readability across both languages. Notably, some Spanish responses appeared to be direct translations from English, leading to unnatural phrasing. The findings underscore the potential and challenges of using ChatGPT for health care access.

    Conclusions: ChatGPT holds potential as a health information resource but requires improvements in readability and linguistic equity to be truly effective for diverse populations. Crucially, the default user experience with ChatGPT, typically encountered by those without advanced language and prompting skills, can significantly shape health perceptions. This is vital from a public health standpoint, as the majority of users will interact with LLMs in their most accessible form. Ensuring that default responses are accurate, understandable, and equitable is imperative for fostering informed health decisions across diverse communities.

    JMIR Form Res 2024;8:e60939

    doi:10.2196/60939

    Keywords

    vaccination; health equity; multilingualism; language equity; health literacy; online health information; conversational agents; artificial intelligence; large language models; health information; public health 


    There is a growing recognition of the role of information as a crucial determinant of health [1]. Globally, Google witnesses more than 100 million daily health-related searches. Similarly, Open AI’s ChatGPT experiences over a billion monthly visits and is increasingly used in medical contexts [2]. A survey reports more than 80% of US respondents had used a chatbot in 2023, and another suggests that despite prohibitions on medical use by vendors, millions of medical queries are submitted on a weekly basis by users of OpenAI alone [3,4]. Such publicly available large language models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT can be a promising source of health care information. Individuals may readily derive benefits from straightforward queries and interactive dialogue when seeking medical advice or making health-related decisions. However, evaluations on the quality of LLM responses still show conflicting results. Recent studies reveal that human experts perceived ChatGPT’s responses to be accurate, relevant, easy to read, and comprehensive [5-7]. Despite the potential usability of LLMs, scholars pose concerns about the use of ChatGPT and other LLMs for professionals’ medical advice [8,9]. Empirical evidence still exists for plausible-sounding yet inaccurate or fraudulent outcomes, as well as limited readability, semantic repetition, or coherence loss in lengthy passages [8,10-13].

    Notably, there is a critical need to examine how LLMs respond to controversial topics such as vaccination. Communication and media environments can be regarded as determinants of hesitant vaccine attitudes [14]. Given the emergence of LLMs such as ChatGPT as channels of health information, their responses may shape users’ perceptions of the vaccine and health care decision-making. Recent work suggests that ChatGPT exhibits a notably precise, clear, easy-to-understand, and unbiased tone in its delivery of vaccination [9,15,16]. Yet, most research has solely focused on the quality of ChatGPT responses in English, limiting considerations of linguistic equity.

    Scholars have paid relatively little attention to LLMs' multilingual capabilities. Given the potential impact of language barriers and linguistic inequities in health care [17-20], the evaluation of their multilingual outcomes should become an integral part of ensuring health equity. Indeed, there are remarkable disparities in vaccination coverage and attitudes by racial and language groups in the United States. For example, Latino and Black populations were more hesitant to COVID-19 vaccines than White populations [21]. Latino parents have also shown a high rate of COVID-19 vaccine resistance and uncertainty [22,23]. Furthermore, Latino adults have reported lower human papillomavirus vaccination rates (41%) than White and Black populations (50% and 46%, respectively) [24].

    Given the need to increase information access and equity surrounding vaccines in non-English languages for those with low English preference, we argue that we should pay attention to the different linguistic features of ChatGPT responses, particularly as it relates to Spanish, the most spoken non-English language in the United States [25]. It is necessary to comprehensively evaluate LLMs’ multilingual outcomes with consideration to both response quality and equity. However, this area is severely understudied. A table of related works has been presented in Table 1. As summarized in the table, the unique contribution from this study is the mixed methods approach to compare ChatGPT responses across multiple languages and multiple dimensions using a validated instrument such as the National Institutes of Health’s Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT) to measure understandability, level of misinformation to measure accuracy and Flesch-Kincaid readability and grade Level to measure readability. Other qualitative studies have been conducted using PEMAT and Flesch-Kincaid grade levels [6,8], but only for English language. There are very few studies that compare across multiple languages using both quantitative and qualitative evaluation. One notable exception is the study by Jin et al [26], but it does not use validated instruments. Another exception is our own previous work, which found the disparity in vaccine hesitancy-related responses across different languages [27]. Though we found that vaccine-hesitancy was the most in English responses and the least in Spanish responses, the study was limited to comparing single-word quantitative responses with vaccination survey questions in English, Spanish, and French. To ensure qualified and equitable health information in multilingual LLMs, we need more research that examines the cross-language health content across diverse dimensions. These works are tabulated in Table 1 where we see no other work using mixed methods to compare responses across languages using validated scales.

    Table 1. Comparison of related works that study large language model responses in health context.
    StudyDimensionsCodersMultilingualMethod

    		AccuracyUnderstandabilityReadability


    Johnson et al [6]—a—aFKb5 human expertsNoQualitative comparison between ChatGPT responses and the National Cancer Institute’s frequently asked questions (FAQs)
    Pan et al [8]Level of misinformationPEMATcFKb2 human expertsNoCross-sectional study of quality of info. across 4 chatbots
    Jin et al [26]Auto + human—a—aLLM + humanYesquantitative as well as qualitative evaluation across multiple languages
    This studyLevel of misinformationPEMATcFKb3 codersYesMixed methods to compare ChatGPT responses across multiple languages and dimensions

    a—: not applicable.

    bFK: Flesch-Kincaid.

    cPEMAT: Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool.

    The current study aims to expand our previous work by exploring whether popular LLMs, such as ChatGPT, provide reliable health information in multiple languages. We specifically aim to compare responses to childhood vaccination–related frequently asked questions from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and ChatGPT across accuracy, understandability, and readability dimensions in both, English and Spanish using both, quantitative and qualitative approaches. By doing so, we hope to identify and address systemic inequities that may exist in LLMs, so as to better promote equity and inclusion in the development of technologies that impact access to quality health information and communication.


    Data Collection

    In order to examine the variation in ChatGPT response, we used a set of 16 frequently asked questions (FAQs) on the CDC website in both English and Spanish [28,29]. Chat completion API from OpenAI was used to interface with the ChatGPT-4 engine to obtain textual responses to each of the questions [30]. These questions yielded short free-form responses. Figure 1 shows an example of a single response. This process was repeated 3 times to avoid extreme single responses impacting the results dramatically. Overall, we had a total of 96 responses from ChatGPT (3 responses for each of the 16 questions in both languages) and 32 responses from CDC’s FAQs (16 responses each in both languages, 128 responses in total).

    ‎
    Figure 1. A sample question from the frequently asked questions and sample answers as obtained from Centers of Disease Control and Prevention and ChatGPT.

    Quantitative Analysis

    Responses were evaluated on 3 dimensions, namely, accuracy, understandability, and readability. These dimensions were identified based on their importance in the literature and the potential impact that they can have in contentious health contexts [5-11,31-34].

    Accuracy was assessed using a 3-point item to measure the level of misinformation in responses (1=no misinformation, 2=some misinformation, and 3=high misinformation). Multimedia Appendix 1 [35-42] includes our reasoning for using a 3-point scale. Understandability was assessed using the National Library of Medicine’s Health Education Materials Assessment Tool [31], which consists of 8 yes or no items adapted from the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool’s understandability domain [32]. A final score was derived as an average of the 8 items and represented as a percentage, with higher scores meaning higher understandability. This instrument is available in English and Spanish (Multimedia Appendix 1 [35-42]). Two coders [AA] and [MM] independently scored blinded responses for accuracy and understandability. Coders were bilingual, bicultural students trained by a bilingual, bicultural team member who is an expert in qualitative data analysis in health communication and public health. Interrater reliability was high for both domains (98% agreement in accuracy, 𝜅=–0.01; 99% agreement in understandability, 𝜅=0.86) [43,44]. Readability was assessed using Flesch-Kincaid readability scores for English and Flesch-Huerta index for Spanish [33,34] where scores between 0 and 100 are scaled to grade levels from fifth grade (90-100) to professional (0-10). Data was extracted and summarized using Python and transformed into spreadsheets; basic statistical tests were conducted using Microsoft Excel (version 2312).

    Qualitative Analysis

    We also conducted a qualitative analysis of the responses, with the goal of providing additional context regarding any nuances within and between languages that would otherwise not be captured (eg, typographical errors, sentence structure, and word choice) [45]. Coders were provided instructions for each of the domains assessed, then provided with space to take notes of any important nuances they saw in any of the item’s responses as related to overall tone (sentence structure, word choices, particularly in Spanish, or spelling nuances) to discuss as a team. This was accomplished using a Qualtrics form, where coders were instructed to enter any observations regarding the similarities and differences within and between languages for each set of responses.

    The coders then proceeded to discuss all items and notes with the lead faculty member [YR] and achieve consensus on findings to ensure dependability and reliability in assessments and identify similarities and differences in responses between languages and achieve consensus to ensure dependability and reliability in assessments [46,47].


    Quantitative Analysis

    Table 2 shows average word, sentence, and syllable counts. On average, Spanish used more words, sentences, and syllables per response. ChatGPT responses were generally more verbose than CDC responses. In addition, ChatGPT sentence count ranges were more variable than those of CDC responses for both English (ChatGPT: 1-22 and CDC: 2-7) and Spanish (ChatGPT: 2-24 and CDC: 2-8).

    The results in terms of accuracy, understandability, and readability are summarized in Table 3.

    Table 2. Mean (range) of verbosity measures.
    MeasuresEnglishSpanishTotal

    		CDCa, mean (range)ChatGPT, mean (range)CDCa, mean (range)ChatGPT, mean (range)CDCa, mean (range)ChatGPT, mean (range)
    Sentence count4.06
    (2-7)    		7
    (1-22)    		4.38
    (2-8)    		7.15
    (2-24)    		4.22
    (2-8)    		7.07 as
    (1-24)
    Syllable count116.75
    (53-241)    		172.79
    (63-515)    		189.94
    (82-371)    		270.5
    (100-672)    		153.34
    (53-371)    		221.65
    (63-672)

    aCDC: Centers for Disease control and Prevention.

    Table 3. Mean (range) of different attributes in English, Spanish, and total for CDC and ChatGPT.
    AttributesEnglishSpanishTotal

    		CDCa, mean (range)ChatGPT, mean (range)CDCa, mean (range)ChatGPT, mean (range)CDCa, mean (range)ChatGPT, mean (range)
    Number of sessions with ChatGPT1616 × 31616 × 32 × 162 × 16 × 3
    Accuracy1
    (1-1)    		1.02
    (1-2)    		1
    (1-1)    		1.01
    (1-2)    		1
    (1-1)    		1.02
    (1-2)
    Understandability95.65
    (85.7-100)    		95.87
    (57.1-100)    		98.83
    (75-100)    		95.7
    (71.43-100)    		97.24
    (75-100)    		95.79
    (57.14-100)
    Readability score48.1
    (26.61-65.93)    		42.52
    (22.36-62.1)    		74.92
    (53.65-89.02)    		69.63
    (54.56-80.72)    		61.51
    (26.61-89.02)    		56.08
    (22.36-80.72)
    Grade level12.13
    (8.5-16)    		12.84
    (8.5-16)    		7.19
    (6-11)    		7.93
    (6-11)    		9.66
    (6-16)    		10.39
    (6-16)

    aCDC: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

    Accuracy

    We found that all responses had high accuracy. CDC responses in both languages had no misinformation, while only 3 responses were coded as having some misinformation by 1 coder each (due to nuanced responses lacking clarifying context). None of the responses were rated as having high misinformation.

    Understandability

    Responses also rated high in understandability (Table 3). There were no significant differences in understandability between CDC and ChatGPT responses within or between languages (Table S5 in Multimedia Appendix 1 [35-42]), suggesting ChatGPT responses were in alignment with CDC messaging.

    Readability

    There was significant variation in readability scores between the responses within languages and between CDC and ChatGPT (Table 3). On average, ChatGPT responses had lower readability scores than the CDC responses, regardless of language (56.08 vs 61.51; t23=2.32; P=.03). Meanwhile, when comparing responses by language, English responses had lower average readability scores than Spanish responses for both CDC and ChatGPT (CDC: t29=48.10 vs 74.92; t29=–7.87; P<.001; ChatGPT: 42.52 vs 69.63; t24=–13.03; P<.001; Tables 3 and 4). When comparing grade levels, English responses for both CDC and ChatGPT were significantly higher than those in Spanish (CDC: 12th grade English vs 7th grade Spanish, P<.001, (df)=26; ChatGPT: 13th grade English vs 8th grade Spanish, P<.001, (df)=26). Given the American Medical Association’s recommendation that patient materials be written at the sixth-grade level [48], we assessed the odds of each platform in satisfying this requirement. Overall, CDC responses were 13.57 times more likely to satisfy the sixth-grade level than ChatGPT responses (Χ21=5.6, P=.02; Fisher Exact P=.01). This was similar among Spanish language responses (CDC 15.64 times higher than ChatGPT; Χ21=5.86, P=.02; Fisher Exact P=.01). We did not observe any significant differences between CDC and ChatGPT English responses (details on post hoc pairwise across different groups are available in Multimedia Appendix 1 [35-42]). In order to verify the effect of metric across different groups, post hoc 2-tailed pairwise t tests at 95% significance were conducted as shown in Table 4.

    Table 4. Significance of difference between groups using t tests.
    AttributesEnglish and SpanishChatGPTCDCa

    		CDCaChatGPTt test (df)P valueEnglishSpanisht test (df)P valueEnglishSpanisht test (df)P value
    Readability score61.5156.082.32 (23).0342.5269.63–13.03 (24)<.00148.1074.92–7.87 (29)<.001
    Grade level9.6610.39–1.96 (26).0612.847.9316.19 (21)<.00112.137.198.71 (21)<.001

    aCDC: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

    Qualitative Analysis

    When qualitatively comparing responses in both languages, several differences were observed that provide additional context otherwise missed. For example, ChatGPT would oftentimes respond in list format, making it somewhat easier to read responses comparing risks and benefits, side effects, or other reasons to vaccinate. ChatGPT would also provide additional information and examples to questions. When specifically looking at Spanish responses, we observed some Spanish text using English words in quotations (eg, “herd immunity” and “fake”). We also noticed that, despite better readability scores than English, some Spanish responses would use less colloquial words (eg, “proporcionar” instead of “proveer” or “patógeno” instead of “infección”), while others had sentence structures that resembled a word-by-word English translation (eg, “Retrasar las vacunas puede poner en riesgo a su hijo (y a otros) de contraer enfermedades que podrían haberse prevenido” rather than “Al retrasar vacunas, su hijo y otros pueden contraer enfermedades que podrían prevenirse,” which might be more commonly used by a native Spanish speaker). All responses are provided in Multimedia Appendix 2.


    Principal Findings

    This study evaluated the quality and equity of LLM’s outcomes. Our findings show that ChatGPT provided adequate levels of accuracy and understandability to vaccine-related questions in both English and Spanish. Past results on the accuracy of ChatGPT have been mixed. While some recent work exploring ChatGPT’s responses to health-related content also suggests little to no misinformation is being shared [6,8,27], others suggest significant levels of misinformation [11]. Our results suggest that in the context of vaccine FAQs, ChatGPT provides information with high accuracy. Furthermore, ChatGPT’s easy-to-understand responses could be an accessible resource for users with limited health literacy or with limited access to health care services, thereby contributing to efforts to address health disparities and inequities. This may be particularly useful to Spanish-speaking individuals in areas where there is limited access to language-concordant health education.

    However, our study also found some challenges in the quality and equity of LLM’s outcomes. First, there is a need to moderate ChatGPT’s responses, particularly in English, to adhere to recommended reading levels. The American Medical Association-recommended reading levels for health care material are at sixth grade or below. However, ChatGPT’s English responses to childhood vaccination questions often necessitated reading skills well above that of a sixth-grade level. This was also the case with CDC. Both scenarios merit attention since failure to adhere to acceptable readability standards could act as a potential barrier to health information. Ease of reading may lead to enhanced knowledge of health, thereby playing a crucial role in taking functional health literacy [49].

    Second, we observed that the representations of words in ChatGPT occasionally exhibited the linguistic patterns of English in the Spanish responses. While these were not incorrectly written, some Spanish responses seem to be translated directly from English text or used less common Spanish vocabulary. There were also several instances where the Spanish response had English words in quotation marks, even though a Spanish equivalent exists. Although it may not merely translate word-for-word between English and other languages, recent evidence found that the multilingual language model, Llama-2 (Meta), is primarily dependent on English to understand the meanings of ideas across different languages [50]. While LLMs use multilingual training data, English is still the most dominant language in their training dataset [51]. Indeed, LLMs are mostly skilled in English-based tasks and are also proficient in translating from English to non-English languages. However, such verbatim translations of English could fail to capture adequate domain-specific jargon and nuances of cultural context [52] and lead to a lack of information support for those with preferences for non-English languages to obtain public health information. Therefore, English dependency in the training data of LLMs could be a potential risk to health care equity. In the future, more inclusion of more diverse data sets from other languages including minority dialects should be considered in training data.

    We note that the results presented in this work focus on those obtained without any prompt engineering. For instance, carefully crafted prompt engineering could impact the readability of ChatGPT-generated responses. Our study centers on the natural querying behavior exhibited by the majority of ChatGPT users, who typically engage with the system in a conversational manner, similar to their interactions with traditional search engines such as Google. This is particularly true for vulnerable populations seeking health information, who may not be aware of or use prompt engineering techniques. While ChatGPT has 100 million active weekly users [53], there is no clear data on how many of these users use prompt engineering. However, it is reasonable to assume that a significant portion of these users, especially those from nontechnical backgrounds, with limited English proficiency, and those under medical duress, interact with ChatGPT without advanced prompting strategies. Our research illuminates the natural user experience and the inherent readability of ChatGPT’s responses, which holds significant implications for public health informatics. The differences in responses under typical user conditions are noteworthy and warrant further examination, particularly in light of multilingual users who may be at higher risk of health inequities.

    The work also intersects with recent legislation and policy discussions around guardrails needed for automated artificial intelligence (AI) systems. According to the Executive Order [54], “irresponsible use [of AI] could exacerbate societal harms such as fraud, discrimination, bias, and disinformation…” LLM implementations such as ChatGPT are classified as “automated systems” that have a direct effect on decision-making for communities due to continuous data exchange, as opposed to “passive computing infrastructure” [55]. Therefore, it is imperative that proper guardrails are put in place to maintain fairness and equity of health information by continuously monitoring the metrics such as accuracy and quality of, and access to, health information produced by LLMs like ChatGPT for everybody including underserved communities. Similarly, one of the findings of the recent report [56] from President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology for the president states that “Without proper benchmark metrics, validation procedures, and responsible practices, AI systems can give unreliable outputs whose quality is difficult to evaluate, and which could be harmful for a scientific field and its applications.” Since there is demonstrated disparity in the grade level of ChatGPT responses in different languages, it is imperative that thorough study of its impact in health information equity is conducted. In fact, the Office of Management and Budget issued a memo recommending “Minimum Practices for Rights-Impacting AI” [57] that involves identifying and assessing “AI’s impact on equity and fairness” and mitigating “algorithmic discrimination when it is present” by December 2024 and studies like ours are important in identifying yet understudied dimensions of health equity, that is, cross-language comparison of LLM responses in the health context.

    Limitations

    This paper also has some limitations. It focuses on a single set of FAQs sourced from 1 agency (CDC) on a particular topic (vaccination). The results have only been evaluated on a single LLM technology (ChatGPT) at 1 time. As ChatGPT responses can vary over iterations, we have averaged them over 3 iterations. Our focus is limited to comparing 2 languages (English and Spanish) and future studies should consider more variations in languages, questionnaires, and information systems. However, beyond the results with a specific LLM or languages, this work aims to motivate an important area of research, equity audits across languages in different languages for health-centric conversations with automated agents.

    Conclusion

    This study compared ChatGPT and CDC vaccination information in English and Spanish. We found that both sources were accurate and understandable, but ChatGPT had lower readability (higher-grade level) than CDC in both languages. Furthermore, some Spanish responses often appeared to be translations of the English ones, rather than independently generated, which could hinder information access for Spanish speakers. These findings suggest that ChatGPT is a promising tool for providing health information, but it needs to improve its readability and cultural sensitivity to ensure quality and equity. We recommend further research on the impact of natural language generation systems on public health outcomes and behaviors.

    Acknowledgments

    This work was funded in part by a Rutgers School of Communication and Information Scholarly Futures grant and a New Jersey State Policy Lab grant.

    Data Availability

    Data have been made public upon acceptance. Data from ChatGPT are available as text in the zipped file in Multimedia Appendix 2. Coding and readability data are available as MS XLSX file in Multimedia Appendix 3. The survey used for coding the responses is available on Qualtrics [58].

    Authors' Contributions

    Conception and development were done by SJ, EH, YMR, and VKS. Theory and computations were led by SJ with support from EH, YMR, and VKS. Qualitative analysis was undertaken by AA and MM under guidance from YMR and VKS supervised and coordinated the work. All authors discussed the results and contributed to the final manuscript.

    Conflicts of Interest

    None declared.

    Multimedia Appendix 1

    Additional details on methodology.

    DOCX File , 44 KB
    Multimedia Appendix 2

    Data from ChatGPT as text in a zipped file.

    ZIP File (Zip Archive), 47 KB
    Multimedia Appendix 3

    Coding and readability data as MS XLSX file.

    ZIP File (Zip Archive), 75 KB
    1. Horn I. Our work toward health equity. Google Blog; 2022. URL: https://blog.google/technology/health/health-equity-summit-2022 [accessed 2024-09-16]
    2. Duarte F. Number of ChatGPT users (Aug 2024). Exploring Topics blog; 2024. URL: https://explodingtopics.com/blog/chatgpt-users [accessed 2024-09-16]
    3. Porter J. ChatGPT continues to be one of the fastest-growing services ever. The Verge blog; 2023. URL: https://www.theverge.com/2023/11/6/23948386/chatgpt-active-user-count-openai-developer-conference [accessed 2024-09-16]
    4. Leah L. What do your customers actually think about chatbots? Userlike blog; 2022. URL: https://www.userlike.com/en/blog/consumer-chatbot-perceptions [accessed 2024-09-16]
    5. Hamidi A, Roberts K. Evaluation of AI chatbots for patient-specific EHR questions. ArXiv. Preprint posted online on June 05, 2023. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef]
    6. Johnson SB, King AJ, Warner EL, Aneja S, Kann BH, Bylund CL. Using ChatGPT to evaluate cancer myths and misconceptions: artificial intelligence and cancer information. JNCI Cancer Spectr. 2023;7(2):pkad015. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    7. Lambert R, Choo ZY, Gradwohl K, Schroedl L, Ruiz De Luzuriaga A. Assessing the application of large language models in generating dermatologic patient education materials according to reading level: qualitative study. JMIR Dermatol. 2024;7:e55898. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    8. Pan A, Musheyev D, Bockelman D, Loeb S, Kabarriti AE. Assessment of artificial intelligence chatbot responses to top searched queries about cancer. JAMA Oncol. 2023;9(10):1437-1440. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    9. Sallam M, Salim NA, Al-Tammemi AB, Barakat M, Fayyad D, Hallit S, et al. ChatGPT output regarding compulsory vaccination and COVID-19 vaccine conspiracy: a descriptive study at the outset of a paradigm shift in online search for information. Cureus. 2023;15(2):e35029. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    10. Alkaissi H, McFarlane SI. Artificial hallucinations in ChatGPT: implications in scientific writing. Cureus. 2023;15(2):e35179. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    11. Bhattacharyya M, Miller VM, Bhattacharyya D, Miller LE. High rates of fabricated and inaccurate references in ChatGPT-generated medical content. Cureus. 2023;15(5):e39238. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    12. Brown T, Mann B, Ryder N, Subbiah M, Kaplan J, Dhariwal P, et al. Language models are few-shot learners. ArXiv. Preprint posted online on May 28, 2020. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef]
    13. Májovský M, Černý M, Kasal M, Komarc M, Netuka D. Artificial intelligence can generate fraudulent but authentic-looking scientific medical articles: pandora's box has been opened. J Med Internet Res. 2023;25:e46924. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    14. Rodrigues F, Block S, Sood S. What determines vaccine hesitancy: recommendations from childhood vaccine hesitancy to address COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. Vaccines (Basel). 2022;10(1):80. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    15. Deiana G, Dettori M, Arghittu A, Azara A, Gabutti G, Castiglia P. Artificial intelligence and public health: evaluating ChatGPT responses to vaccination myths and misconceptions. Vaccines (Basel). 2023;11(7):1217. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    16. Torun C, Sarmis A, Oguz A. Is ChatGPT an accurate and reliable source of information for patients with vaccine and statin hesitancy? Medeni Med J. 2024;39(1):1-7. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    17. Ali PA, Watson R. Language barriers and their impact on provision of care to patients with limited english proficiency: nurses' perspectives. J Clin Nurs. 2018;27(5-6):e1152-e1160. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    18. Green AR, Nze C. Language-based inequity in health care: who is the "Poor Historian"? AMA J Ethics. 2017;19(3):263-271. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    19. Wilson E, Chen AHM, Grumbach K, Wang F, Fernandez A. Effects of limited English proficiency and physician language on health care comprehension. J Gen Intern Med. 2005;20(9):800-806. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    20. Müller F, Schröder D, Noack EM. Overcoming language barriers in paramedic care with an app designed to improve communication with foreign-language patients: nonrandomized controlled pilot study. JMIR Form Res. 2023;7:e43255. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    21. Ndugga N, Hill L, Artiga S, Haldar S. Latest data on COVID-19 vaccinations by race/ethnicity. KFF; 2022. URL: https:/​/www.​kff.org/​coronavirus-covid-19/​issue-brief/​latest-data-on-covid-19-vaccinations-by-race-ethnicity [accessed 2024-09-16]
    22. Fisher C, Bragard E, Madhivanan P. COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among economically marginalized hispanic parents of children under five years in the United States. Vaccines (Basel). 2023;11(3):599. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    23. Valier MR, Elam-Evans LD, Mu Y, Santibanez TA, Yankey D, Zhou T, et al. Racial and ethnic differences in COVID-19 vaccination coverage among children and adolescents aged 5-17 years and parental intent to vaccinate their children - national immunization survey-child COVID module, United States, December 2020-September 2022. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2023;72(1):1-8. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    24. Black L, Boersma P. QuickStats: percentage* of adults aged 18-26 years who ever received a human papillomavirus vaccine,† by race and hispanic origin§ and sex - national health interview survey, United States, 2019¶. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2021;70(21):797. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    25. Dietrich S, Hernandez E. What languages do we speak in the United States? United States Census Bureau; 2022. URL: https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2022/12/languages-we-speak-in-united-states.html [accessed 2024-09-16]
    26. Jin Y, Chandra M, Verma G, Hu Y, De CM, Kumar S. Better to ask in English: cross-lingual evaluation of large language models for healthcare queries. In: Association for Computing Machinery. 2023. Presented at: WWW '24: Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2024; May 13-17, 2024:2627-2638; New York, United States. URL: https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3589334.3645643 [CrossRef]
    27. Joshi S, Ha E, Rivera YM, Singh VK. ChatGPT and vaccine hesitancy: a comparison of English, Spanish, and French responses using a validated scale. AMIA Jt Summits Transl Sci Proc. 2024;2024:266-275. [Medline]
    28. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). URL: https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/parents/FAQs.html [accessed 2023-08-07]
    29. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). URL: https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/parents/FAQs-sp.html [accessed 2023-08-07]
    30. Chat Completions. OpenAI Platform URL: https://platform.openai.com/docs/guides/text-generation/chat-completions-api [accessed 2024-09-17]
    31. Health education materials assessment tool. National Library of Medicine URL: https://medlineplus.gov/pdf/health-education-materials-assessment-tool.pdf [accessed 2024-09-17]
    32. Shoemaker SJ, Wolf MS, Brach C. The patient education materials assessment tool (PEMAT) and user’s guide. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) URL: https://www.ahrq.gov/health-literacy/patient-education/pemat.html [accessed 2024-09-17]
    33. Kincaid JP, Fishburne J, Robert P, Rogers, Richard L, Chissom, et al. Derivation of new readability formulas (automated readability index, fog count and flesch reading ease formula) for navy enlisted personnel. Defense Technical Information Center; 1975. URL: https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/citations/ADA006655 [accessed 2024-09-17]
    34. Separar en Sílabas, Contador de Palabras y Analizador en Línea. URL: https://www.separarensilabas.com/index.php [accessed 2024-03-30]
    35. Banerjee M, Capozzoli M, McSweeney L, Sinha D. Beyond kappa: a review of interrater agreement measures. Can J Stat. 1999;27(1):3-23. [CrossRef]
    36. Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33(1):159-174. [Medline]
    37. Bexkens R, Claessen FM, Kodde IF, Oh LS, Eygendaal D, van den Bekerom MP. The kappa paradox. Shoulder Elbow. 2018;10(4):308. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    38. Immunization. US Department of Health and Human Services URL: https://www.hhs.gov/immunization/basics/types/index.html [accessed 2023-08-07]
    39. Vaccines and immunizations. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention URL: https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/index.html [accessed 2023-09-17]
    40. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). URL: https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/parents/index.html [accessed 2023-08-07]
    41. National center for immunization and respiratory diseases. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention URL: https://www.cdc.gov/ncird/index.html [accessed 2023-09-17]
    42. Vaccines and immunization. World Health Organization URL: https://www.who.int/health-topics/vaccines-and-immunization [accessed 2023-09-17]
    43. De Vries H, Elliott MN, Kanouse DE, Teleki SS. Using pooled kappa to summarize interrater agreement across many items. Field Methods. 2008;20(3):272-282. [CrossRef]
    44. Neuendorf KA. Jordan AB, Kunkel D, Manganello J, Fishbein M, editors. Media messages and public health: a decisions approach to content analysis. New York, NY. Routledge; 2008.
    45. National Institutes of Health. Best Practices for Mixed Methods Research in the Health Sciences (2nd ed). US Department of Health and Human Services; 2018. URL: https:/​/implementationscience-gacd.​org/​wp-content/​uploads/​2020/​11/​Best-Practices-for-Mixed-Methods-Research-in-the-Health-Sciences-2018-01-25-1.​pdf [accessed 2024-09-17]
    46. Morse JM. Critical analysis of strategies for determining rigor in qualitative inquiry. Qual Health Res. 2015;25(9):1212-1222. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    47. Guba EG, Lincoln YS. Fourth Generation Evaluation. Newbury Park, California. Sage; 1989.
    48. Rooney MK, Santiago G, Perni S, Horowitz DP, McCall AR, Einstein AJ, et al. Readability of patient education materials from high-impact medical journals: a 20-year analysis. J Patient Exp. 2021;8:2374373521998847. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    49. Millar BC, Moore JE. Improving vaccine-related health literacy in parents: comparison on the readability of CDC Vaccine Information Statements (VIS) and Health and Human Services (HHS) patient-facing vaccine literature. Ther Adv Vaccines Immunother. 2021;9:25151355211047521. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    50. Wendler C, Veselovsky V, Monea G, West R. Do Llamas work in English? on the latent language of multilingual transformers. ArXiv. Preprint posted online on February 16, 2024. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef]
    51. OpenAI, Achiam J, Adler S, Agarwal S, Ahmad L, Akkaya I, et al. GPT-4 technical report. ArXiv. Preprint posted online on March 15, 2023. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef]
    52. Lai VD, Ngo NT, Veyseh AP, Man H, Dernoncourt F, Bui T, et al. ChatGPT beyond English: towards a comprehensive evaluation of large language models in multilingual learning. Association for Computational Linguistics. 2023:13171-13189. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef]
    53. Nerdynav. 107 Up-to-Date ChatGPT Statistics & User Numbers. 2022. URL: https://nerdynav.com/chatgpt-statistics [accessed 2024-09-17]
    54. Biden JR. Executive order on the safe, secure, and trustworthy development and use of artificial intelligence. The White House; 2023. URL: https:/​/www.​whitehouse.gov/​briefing-room/​presidential-actions/​2023/​10/​30/​executive-order-on-the-safe-secure-and-trustworthy-development-and-use-of-artificial-intelligence [accessed 2024-09-17]
    55. Blueprint for an AI bill of rights. The White House; 2022. URL: https://www.whitehouse.gov/ostp/ai-bill-of-rights [accessed 2024-09-17]
    56. President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. Supercharging research: harnessing artificial intelligence to meet global challenges. 2024. URL: https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/AI-Report_Upload_29APRIL2024_SEND-2.pdf [accessed 2024-09-17]
    57. Young SD. Advancing governance, innovation, and risk management for agency use of artificial intelligence. Office of Management and Budget; 2024. URL: https:/​/www.​whitehouse.gov/​wp-content/​uploads/​2024/​03/​M-24-10-Advancing-Governance-Innovation-and-Risk-Management-for-Agency-Use-of-Artificial-Intelligence.​pdf [accessed 2024-09-17]
    58. Qualtrics. URL: https://rutgers.ca1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_9Ep3HcaBWx2HRwq [accessed 2024-10-11]

    ‎
    AI: artificial intelligence
    CDC: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
    FAQ: frequently asked question
    LLM: large language model
    PEMAT: Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool

    Edited by A Mavragani; submitted 26.05.24; peer-reviewed by L Hong, G Verma; comments to author 10.07.24; revised version received 31.07.24; accepted 21.08.24; published 30.10.24.

    Copyright

    ©Saubhagya Joshi, Eunbin Ha, Andee Amaya, Melissa Mendoza, Yonaira Rivera, Vivek K Singh. Originally published in JMIR Formative Research (https://formative.jmir.org), 30.10.2024.

    This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in JMIR Formative Research, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on https://formative.jmir.org, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.